RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00600
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His “Under Other than Honorable Conditions” (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to “General.”
He be allowed to retire from the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received inappropriate advice from his counsel.
The punishment he received far outweighs his alleged wrongdoing.
He honorably served the Air Force for 19 years and 9 months.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a three-page letter
detailing his version of events leading to his discharge from the Air
Force. He also provides character references from several individuals
that served with him in the Air Force, a letter from his sister to the
Veterans Service Office, and documents from his service record.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 27 May 1980. He
was progressively promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant. A
resume of his last ten Enlisted/Airman Performance Reports (EPRs/APRs)
follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
*24 Oct 88 9
*24 Oct 89 9
24 Oct 90** 5
24 Oct 91 5
24 Oct 92 5
24 Oct 93 4
01 May 94 5
01 May 95 5
01 May 96 5
01 May 97 4
01 May 98 5
01 May 99 5
* APR system
** Begins ratings under EPR system
On 2 Sep 99, the applicant provided a urine sample during a unit
random urinalysis. He tested positive for amphetamines and
methamphetamines. The applicant faced trial by court-martial due to
his positive urinalysis. After consulting with military counsel, on
14 Jan 00, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air
Force in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant indicated that
he understood that he was entitled to lengthy service probation
consideration and to apply for retirement through the dual action
processing in the office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He waived
both these entitlements. On 21 Jan 00, the applicant’s squadron
commander recommended to the court-martial authority, the Center
Commander, through his wing commander that the applicant’s request be
approved and that the applicant’s discharge be characterized as “under
other than honorable conditions.” The wing commander recommended to
the center commander that the applicant’s request be approved with the
same character of discharge recommended by the squadron commander.
The applicant’s spouse submitted a statement in support of her
husband’s request through his military counsel. On 7 Feb 00, the
Center Staff Judge Advocate recommended to the commander that the
applicant’s request be approved. On 7 Feb 00, the Center Commander
approved the applicant’s request and directed that the applicant be
discharged with service characterized as “under other honorable
conditions.”
On 24 Feb 00, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208 (Triable by Court-Martial), with service characterized as under
other than honorable conditions. He was credited with 19 years, 8
months, and 27 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS evaluated the applicant’s discharge processing. They
recommend denial of his request for upgrade of his discharge. The
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRRP evaluated the applicant’s request for retirement benefits.
They recommend denial of his request.
The US Code provides that an enlisted member must have 20 years of
total active federal military service to be eligible to voluntarily
retire. Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his
discharge.
The FY93 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 102-484, 23
Oct 92 provided the Secretary of Defense with authority to prescribe
regulations and policies regarding the criteria for eligibility for 15-
year retirement and approval of applications for retirement. The
applicant was not eligible to apply for retirement under the 15-year
retirement program based on the fact that he was pending involuntary
separation action.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 Mar 03 for his review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his case and
note that he had an overall excellent record of performance up until
the time of his positive urinalysis for drug use. However, he has
failed to present sufficient evidence that he was the victim of an
error or injustice regarding his discharge from service. While it is
possible to conclude in retrospect that he made the wrong decision to
accept discharge in lieu of court-martial, the decision was his,
albeit at the advice of counsel. It appears that he made what he felt
was the best decision at the time, given the serious charge that he
faced and the possible outcome of trial by court-martial. While it is
regrettable that his Air Force career, given the length and character
of his service, came to such an inglorious end, we do not find
sufficient evidence that the actions of his chain of command to
approve his discharge in lieu of court-martial were in error or
unjust. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-
00600 in Executive Session on 21 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Panel Chair
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Mar 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 14 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.
THOMAS J. TOPOLSKI
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
In accordance with the Air Force 7-day option policy, the applicant was required to retire effective 1 Oct 00. On 28 Mar 00, he requested an exception to the 7-day option policy through his squadron commander requesting a 1 Mar 01 retirement date. There is no provision for the applicant to request an extension of his approved retirement date for the sole purpose of obtaining over 22 years active service.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075
AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00013
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. However, they find it plausible that his commander, not waiting for the decoration package to be completed, assumed an MSM would be approved, and read an MSM citation at the applicant’s retirement ceremony. While the applicant may have been recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as a retirement decoration, we find no evidence that the recommendation had been completed and approved.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03543
On 6 Jul 00, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council SAF/PC, determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and directed that he be advanced in that grade, on the retired list, upon completion of the required service (27 October 2010). SAF/PC made the determination that he should be advanced to the grade of technical sergeant effective 27 Oct 10. The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant did not provide any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge. They recommend the request be denied (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02504
When the applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt after having been previously demoted, the personnel system was not updated prior to his retirement orders being published. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00432
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, dated 31 Jan 03; a copy of her statement to the ERAB, dated 14 Jan 02; a copy of an MFR from her former element chief, dated 3 Aug 01; a copy of her EPR closing 16 Oct 01 and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet (AB thru TSgt), dated 5 Jul 01. Air Force policy states it is the rating chain’s responsibility to “assess and document what the ratee did, how well he or she did it, and the ratee’s potential based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04005
On 17 Oct 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. We find no evidence of error in this case, and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice. The Board notes that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel...